| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: recovery test failures on hoverfly |
| Date: | 2021-06-12 21:28:19 |
| Message-ID: | 2487304.1623533299@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I'm a bit dubious about this. It doesn't seem more robust to insist that
> we pass undef in certain cases.
True, it'd be nicer if that didn't matter; mainly because people
will get it wrong in future.
> If passing the SQL via stdin is fragile,
> as we also found to be the case with passing it via the command line,
> perhaps we should try passing it via a tmp file. Then there would
> presumably be no SIGPIPE.
Seems kind of inefficient. Maybe writing and reading a file would
be a negligible cost compared to everything else involved, but
I'm not sure.
Another angle is that the SIGPIPE complaints aren't necessarily
a bad thing: if psql doesn't read what we send, it's good to
know about that. IMO the real problem is that the errors are
so darn nonrepeatable. I wonder if there is a way to make them
more reproducible?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-06-12 21:29:09 | Re: Race condition in recovery? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-06-12 21:19:38 | Re: recovery test failures on hoverfly |